5 ms·

The military does not give trials to the people it kills. Drone strikes are a military action.

by bloaf 13y ago

rdtsc 13y ago
A part of drone strikes are done by CIA pilots at Langley. I think you are being generous with "military, does this and thus it is ok". But no matter how generous you are, stretching "military" for CIA agents at Langely who kill kids herding goats by day and pick up their kids for soccer practice in the evening is a little too silly for my taste.
- bloaf 13y ago
  The CIA explicitly has no law enforcement capability. Their killing therefore does not represent the enforcement of any law and as such does not require a trial. Their killing is therefore a military action.
  - zachrose 13y ago
    Then so too are gang shootings, domestic murder, and terrorism itself?
    - bloaf 13y ago
      Gangs, civilians, and terrorists are not governmental entities and therefore not military. A state-sanctioned terrorist attack would likely be considered a military action by that state. Organized violence against a foreign country by citizens of another is also referred to as military (e.g. [1]) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_%28military%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_%28military%29
      - _delirium 13y ago
        > A state-sanctioned terrorist attack would likely be considered a military action by that state. The U.S., at least, claims that it wouldn't be. According to the U.S., state-sanctioned terrorism is still terrorism, not legitimate military action, and a violation of international law. Therefore the U.S. maintains a list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism", countries that it alleges engage in such unlawful tactics, either directly or via proxies. For example, it placed Libya on the list after the Lockerbie bombing.
        lostlogin 13y ago
        Don't be reading anything into that list. Terrorism is mostly just a label used to shut down discussion. Funding for the IRA occurred in the US in a big way. The US has also backed even more violent struggles against elected governments. And if shooting down civilian airliners isn't direct terrorism, what it? This is a discussion on murdering people with drone strikes though, and I suppose that's pretty much the same.
    - lostlogin 13y ago
      No no, that stuff is illegal.
VladRussian2 13y ago
indiscriminant killing of civilians is a war crime, not a military action.
- bloaf 13y ago
  Show me a war in which no civilians died. It's easy to use weasel words like "indiscriminate," its hard to be responsible for people's lives. "It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it." Robert E. Lee
  - VladRussian2 13y ago
    >Show me a war in which no civilians died. Show me a war in which these civilians died. As far as i remember there no war has been declared between USA and Pakistan. So these civilians were killed outside of war zone.
    - Volpe 13y ago
      Exactly, also the more well known attack in Yemen. Also not a war zone. Firing missiles on civilians, or "combatants" that aren't engaged in any conflict with you is a war crime. Would you accept this, if the US fired a missile into a Canadian cafe because they thought a terrorist was in there and everyone around him must ALSO be a terrorist (and thus an enemy combatant)?
    - mpyne 13y ago
      The various international laws and treaties covering the Law of Armed Conflict actually allow for a neutral country to permit military action against unlawful combatants that have taken refuge in their territory. There is no need for them to be camping out in a 'war zone' with a 'Please Bomb Me' sign hooked up to their building. Otherwise, what legal basis would nations have for taking military action against pirates on the high seas (the other famous example of non-state actors at war with nations)?
      - _delirium 13y ago
TallGuyShort 13y ago
Kind of like how congress doesn't need to approve things that are "armed conflicts" as opposed to "wars"? Calling killing civilians "military action" doesn't make it not killing civilians.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Congress has approved this "armed conflict". Though, it's not actually legally clear that the President may not use any military force anywhere without Congress's say so. > Calling killing civilians "military action" doesn't make it not killing civilians. Obviously, but that is true for essentially every war ever. It's one of the reasons war is bad, if it only affected those who volunteered for it it would simply be another sporting event...
PavlovsCat 13y ago
That's because the military is supposed to only attack where the trial is a foregone conclusion -- i.e. a soldier actively fighting a war with you. Kinda like the cops also shoot at someone with a gun the moment they raise it at them. There is no trial needed when there is clear and present danger, or a formal declaration of war and uniforms. But of course, with terrorism it's all so complicated and confusing, why not just wear lampshades and drink a lot instead of bothering to figure out what is what.
- anaptdemise 13y ago
  The problem is that we have seen this all before. It is freaking scary to pick up a history book after reading the news. "The Algerian War of Independence does provide such similarities in terms of geography and topography, social makeup, as well as military and insurgent forces at play. The French, however, lost Algeria after eight years of bitter fighting and the subject is further obscured by the emotions surrounding the atrocities by both sides, thus making the collation of objective testimonies difficult. Most confusing, though, are the circumstances specific to a troubled France at the time, such as the profound tensions that existed between citizens in the métropole and French immigrants in Algeria proper, the continued effort to resume its former place as a major power in the world, the collapse of the Fourth Republic in 1958,..."[1] The technology might improve and the tactics might go through a revision or two but what is the possibility of similar outcomes? Is unilateral, and sometimes excessive, force the only possibility? [1]http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/french-counterinsurgency-in-algeria http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/french-counterinsurgenc... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War#French_counter-insurgency_operations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War#French_counter-ins...

The military does not give trials to the people it kills. Drone strikes are a military action.

by bloaf 13y ago

The military does not give trials to the people it kills. Drone strikes are a military action.

rdtsc 13y ago

A part of drone strikes are done by CIA pilots at Langley. I think you are being generous with "military, does this and thus it is ok". But no matter how generous you are, stretching "military" for CIA agents at Langely who kill kids herding goats by day and pick up their kids for soccer practice in the evening is a little too silly for my taste.

bloaf 13y ago
The CIA explicitly has no law enforcement capability. Their killing therefore does not represent the enforcement of any law and as such does not require a trial. Their killing is therefore a military action.
- zachrose 13y ago
  Then so too are gang shootings, domestic murder, and terrorism itself?
  - bloaf 13y ago
    Gangs, civilians, and terrorists are not governmental entities and therefore not military. A state-sanctioned terrorist attack would likely be considered a military action by that state. Organized violence against a foreign country by citizens of another is also referred to as military (e.g. [1]) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_%28military%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_%28military%29
    - _delirium 13y ago
      > A state-sanctioned terrorist attack would likely be considered a military action by that state. The U.S., at least, claims that it wouldn't be. According to the U.S., state-sanctioned terrorism is still terrorism, not legitimate military action, and a violation of international law. Therefore the U.S. maintains a list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism", countries that it alleges engage in such unlawful tactics, either directly or via proxies. For example, it placed Libya on the list after the Lockerbie bombing.
      - lostlogin 13y ago
        Don't be reading anything into that list. Terrorism is mostly just a label used to shut down discussion. Funding for the IRA occurred in the US in a big way. The US has also backed even more violent struggles against elected governments. And if shooting down civilian airliners isn't direct terrorism, what it? This is a discussion on murdering people with drone strikes though, and I suppose that's pretty much the same.
  - lostlogin 13y ago
    No no, that stuff is illegal.

VladRussian2 13y ago

indiscriminant killing of civilians is a war crime, not a military action.

bloaf 13y ago
Show me a war in which no civilians died. It's easy to use weasel words like "indiscriminate," its hard to be responsible for people's lives. "It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it." Robert E. Lee
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  >Show me a war in which no civilians died. Show me a war in which these civilians died. As far as i remember there no war has been declared between USA and Pakistan. So these civilians were killed outside of war zone.
  - Volpe 13y ago
    Exactly, also the more well known attack in Yemen. Also not a war zone. Firing missiles on civilians, or "combatants" that aren't engaged in any conflict with you is a war crime. Would you accept this, if the US fired a missile into a Canadian cafe because they thought a terrorist was in there and everyone around him must ALSO be a terrorist (and thus an enemy combatant)?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    The various international laws and treaties covering the Law of Armed Conflict actually allow for a neutral country to permit military action against unlawful combatants that have taken refuge in their territory. There is no need for them to be camping out in a 'war zone' with a 'Please Bomb Me' sign hooked up to their building. Otherwise, what legal basis would nations have for taking military action against pirates on the high seas (the other famous example of non-state actors at war with nations)?
    - _delirium 13y ago

TallGuyShort 13y ago

Kind of like how congress doesn't need to approve things that are "armed conflicts" as opposed to "wars"? Calling killing civilians "military action" doesn't make it not killing civilians.

mpyne 13y ago
Congress has approved this "armed conflict". Though, it's not actually legally clear that the President may not use any military force anywhere without Congress's say so. > Calling killing civilians "military action" doesn't make it not killing civilians. Obviously, but that is true for essentially every war ever. It's one of the reasons war is bad, if it only affected those who volunteered for it it would simply be another sporting event...

PavlovsCat 13y ago

That's because the military is supposed to only attack where the trial is a foregone conclusion -- i.e. a soldier actively fighting a war with you. Kinda like the cops also shoot at someone with a gun the moment they raise it at them. There is no trial needed when there is clear and present danger, or a formal declaration of war and uniforms. But of course, with terrorism it's all so complicated and confusing, why not just wear lampshades and drink a lot instead of bothering to figure out what is what.

anaptdemise 13y ago
The problem is that we have seen this all before. It is freaking scary to pick up a history book after reading the news. "The Algerian War of Independence does provide such similarities in terms of geography and topography, social makeup, as well as military and insurgent forces at play. The French, however, lost Algeria after eight years of bitter fighting and the subject is further obscured by the emotions surrounding the atrocities by both sides, thus making the collation of objective testimonies difficult. Most confusing, though, are the circumstances specific to a troubled France at the time, such as the profound tensions that existed between citizens in the métropole and French immigrants in Algeria proper, the continued effort to resume its former place as a major power in the world, the collapse of the Fourth Republic in 1958,..."[1] The technology might improve and the tactics might go through a revision or two but what is the possibility of similar outcomes? Is unilateral, and sometimes excessive, force the only possibility? [1]http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/french-counterinsurgency-in-algeria http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/french-counterinsurgenc... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War#French_counter-insurgency_operations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War#French_counter-ins...